Control

The Intel Core i5-14600KF paired with the Intel Arc B370 produces a severely GPU-limited experience in Control, as evidenced by the measured frame rates across the three tested resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 59 FPS, which is the only configuration in the dataset that approaches playable smoothness. However, this performance collapses rapidly as resolution and graphical fidelity increase, underscoring a fundamental imbalance where the processor’s substantial compute potential is rendered moot by the integrated graphics solution’s modest output.

Resolution Scaling

The data reveals a stark linear relationship between resolution and performance degradation. Moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at High settings drops the average frame rate from 37 FPS to 28 FPS, a 24% reduction. The subsequent step to 3840x2160 at High settings further reduces the average to 19 FPS, another 32% decline from the 1440p figure. This pattern indicates that the limiting component is unequivocally the graphics processor, as the frame rate scales almost inversely with pixel count—a hallmark of GPU-bound scenarios.

At Low settings, the scaling is equally telling. The 1080p Low average of 59 FPS falls to 45 FPS at 1440p, and then to 30 FPS at 4K. The 4K Low result is particularly illustrative: even with the most demanding visual features disabled, the Arc B370 cannot maintain a 30 FPS floor, suggesting that raw pixel throughput is the bottleneck rather than shader complexity or texture resolution. The Medium preset shows a similar trend, with averages of 42, 32, and 21 FPS across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively, with the 4K Medium configuration also registering a minimum of 18 FPS and a maximum of 25 FPS, indicating consistent stutter rather than isolated dips.

The Ultra preset, which represents the highest fidelity tier, yields averages of 32 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The 4K Ultra result is the lowest in the entire dataset, confirming that the GPU’s 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient for this game at high resolutions. The data suggests that resolution scaling is nearly perfect—halving the pixel count roughly doubles the frame rate at each settings tier—which is diagnostic of a system where the CPU (with its 14 cores and 20 threads) is never the constraining factor, even in a game known for physics-heavy scenes.

FAQ

*Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Control?*

A: According to the measured FPS data, 1920x1080 is the only resolution where any settings preset achieves a playable average frame rate. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 59 FPS; at 1080p Medium, it averages 42 FPS; at 1080p High, 37 FPS; and at 1080p Ultra, 32 FPS. All 1440p and 4K configurations fall below the 30 FPS threshold except for 1440p Low, which averages 45 FPS.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to High at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the High preset averages 37 FPS, while Ultra averages 32 FPS. This 5 FPS difference (approximately 13.5% reduction) represents the cost of enabling the highest-quality features. The Medium preset, averaging 42 FPS, sits between Low and High, suggesting that the visual gains from Ultra may not justify the frame rate penalty given the GPU’s limitations.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-14600KF holding back the Arc B370?

A: No. The CPU benchmarks show a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544 and a single-core score of 4594, placing it in the 90th percentile vs all CPUs. The measured FPS scaling with resolution indicates the GPU is the bottleneck—if the CPU were limiting, frame rates would remain flat across resolutions, but they drop by roughly 50% from 1080p to 4K.

Q: What is the minimum FPS recorded for this combo?

A: The only configuration with min and max FPS data is the Medium preset. At 3840x2160 Medium, the minimum is 18 FPS and the maximum is 25 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, the minimum is 27 FPS and the maximum is 37 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the minimum is 36 FPS and the maximum is 48 FPS.

Q: How does this GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1184. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186 (a 0.2% delta), while the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher). The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, which is 1.4% lower. This places the Arc B370 in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a very low-performance part.

*Q: Can this combo run Control at 4K?*

A: Technically yes, but not at a satisfactory level. The best 4K result is Low settings at 30 FPS average, which is borderline playable. High settings at 4K average 19 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. None of these provide a stable experience for a fast-paced action-adventure title.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 3 nm process. Its specifications reveal why it struggles in Control: the GPU features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are modest figures that directly constrain performance in a game that relies heavily on environmental destruction and particle effects.

Critically, the memory configuration is “System Shared,” meaning the GPU draws from the system’s main memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bus width is likewise “System Shared,” and the bandwidth is described as “System Dependent.” This architecture means that memory performance is entirely contingent on the CPU’s memory subsystem—in this case, the i5-14600KF supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5. In practice, the shared memory design introduces latency and bandwidth contention that further hampers the already limited compute capabilities.

The GPU’s performance percentile is telling: it sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (score 1186) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190), both of which are over a decade old. The FP32 compute of 6.144 TFLOPS is the theoretical peak, but the 25 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate this is designed for efficiency rather than gaming throughput. The RT cores (10) support DirectX 12 Ultimate, but Control’s heavy use of ray tracing would overwhelm this part, as evidenced by the sub-30 FPS averages at all settings above Low.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a playable experience is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which yields an average of 59 FPS. This is the sole row in the dataset that meets the standard 60 FPS target, though it barely does so. If the user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate, the 1080p Medium preset at 42 FPS average is the next best option, offering a significant improvement over Low while remaining above the 30 FPS playability threshold.

The 1080p High preset (37 FPS average) and Ultra preset (32 FPS average) are technically playable but will feel sluggish in combat scenarios. At 1440p, only the Low preset (45 FPS) is recommended, as Medium (32 FPS), High (28 FPS), and Ultra (25 FPS) all drop below the 30 FPS line. At 4K, no preset is recommended—Low at 30 FPS is the best-case scenario, but the 18 FPS minimum at Medium and 17 FPS at Ultra indicate the GPU cannot handle the resolution consistently.

The data suggests that the Medium preset offers the most balanced trade-off between fidelity and performance at 1080p, with a 42 FPS average and a minimum of 36 FPS, which keeps frame times relatively stable. However, given the 59 FPS result at Low, users who value smoothness should start there and selectively enable lighter features. The Ultra preset provides no measurable benefit in this context, as the 32 FPS average at 1080p is only 5 FPS higher than High but carries the risk of more pronounced dips.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the dataset shows a clear hierarchy across presets. Low settings achieve an average of 59 FPS, the highest result for this combo. Medium settings average 42 FPS, with a minimum of 36 and a maximum of 48. High settings average 37 FPS, and Ultra settings average 32 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 27 FPS, representing a 45.8% reduction in performance when enabling the highest fidelity.

At 2560x1440, the averages drop uniformly. Low settings produce 45 FPS, Medium produces 32 FPS (with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 37), High produces 28 FPS, and Ultra produces 25 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 20 FPS, a 44.4% reduction, mirroring the 1080p scaling. Notably, the 1440p Low result (45 FPS) is higher than the 1080p Ultra result (32 FPS), indicating that resolution scaling has a smaller impact than settings scaling at these extremes.

At 3840x2160, the performance is consistently below playable thresholds. Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 21 FPS (with a minimum of 18 and maximum of 25), High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The 4K Low result is the only one that reaches 30 FPS, and it does so exactly. The 4K Medium minimum of 18 FPS suggests that the GPU is severely overburdened, likely causing noticeable stuttering in action sequences.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i5-14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU’s benchmark scores are impressive: a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32544 and a single-core score of 4594, a Geekbench multi-core score of 17085 and single-core score of 2445, and a Passmark multi-thread score of 38697.

These numbers place the i5-14600KF in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49394. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (avg score 49228, delta 0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, delta 0.4%), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 (48995, delta 0.8%). The CPU is clearly not a bottleneck in Control, as evidenced by the resolution scaling patterns. If the CPU were limiting, the frame rates at 1080p Low (59 FPS) would not be more than double the 4K Low (30 FPS).

The CPU’s 125 W TDP and support for DDR4/DDR5 memory (dual-channel) provide ample bandwidth for the system, but the GPU’s shared memory architecture means that the CPU’s memory controller is shared. In Control, which is known for its physics-based gameplay, the 14 cores and 20 threads should handle the game’s simulation logic with ease. The Passmark physics score of 2449 and floating point math score of 93048 indicate strong computational throughput, but this is irrelevant when the GPU cannot render frames fast enough to utilize it.

How This Combo Ranks

In the overall ranking for Control, this combination of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2657 out of 2888 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 8% of all configurations tested, which aligns with the GPU’s 5th percentile performance rating. The CPU’s 90th percentile ranking is effectively wasted, as the GPU cannot translate the processor’s capabilities into playable frame rates.

The ranking disparity is stark: the CPU is a top-tier performer, while the GPU is a bottom-tier one. The combo rank of 2657 indicates that the vast majority of tested systems—including those with much weaker CPUs—outperform this pairing in Control because they are paired with dedicated graphics cards. The data suggests that this combo is only suitable for very low-resolution or low-fidelity gaming, and even then, it barely meets playability standards. For any user considering this pairing for Control, the measured results indicate a fundamentally unbalanced system where the GPU is the clear and overwhelming limiting factor.